I don't see why you are obsessed with me joining you in your creepiness
You already joined in creepiness by choosing to argue against me. You could have simply said "Pedophilia is wrong, and circumcision videos are wrong.". I dont see why engage in defense of circumcision videos by proxy indirect attacks. Whatever you call me wont change what circumcision videos are. Is it me you are attacking, or arguments against circumcision videos?
Maybe you should just accept it and you and SatanLucy can do your sexual infant thing without me.
I dont see whats so hard about saying "Maybe this infant circumcision thing and recording of it isnt as great idea as we thought".
Approximately 164000 people die each day.
If you believe in spawnism, they dont die, they re spawn somewhere else.
Do I have to earn topic badges too to be in ultrarated, or is that just for proposing topics?
Alright, I am in to give ultrarated a try. Right now there is only 1 ultrarated debate to cast a vote on. So if I cast there, I will hate 2 voting badges.
Philosophy has never been so verbose re: a foolish product
Actually, what I presented isn't mere philosophy.
It is a self removal function in Boolean logic.
A = B
B = removal of A
A = removal of A
And this logic remains true in case of ability to remove autonomy.
Removing autonomy = removes ability to remove autonomy
In other words,
A = removal of A.
A self-removing principle.
So saying that
"Autonomy can be removed for subjective reasons"
When removal of autonomy = removal of ability to remove autonomy,
What follows is:
Autonomy can be removed for subjective reasons = ability to remove autonomy can be removed for subjective reasons
In other words:
A = removes ability of A
A self-destruct of principle.
Another note which needs to be made is that opinion of women on circumcision should never be considered as valid opinion, because women don't have opinions, they have "popularity preference". They simply prefer what is more popular. They don't "think" in the way you and I think. They think in the way of "is this popular? If yes, I approve. If no, I disapprove.".
Best proof of this "popularity preference is circumcision.
In countries where circumcision is popular, women say they find circumcised penises more attractive.
In countries where circumcision isn't popular, women say they don't find circumcised penises more attractive.
Because woman's "opinion", if it can be called that, as well as her sexual attraction, is entirely based on popularity preference of people around her.
She doesn't have her own opinion on anything. Her opinion is just whatever is popular in current environment to think.
A lot of justification for circumcision are entirely sexual:
Women like circumcised penises more (they don't, and even if they did, who cares what woman likes?)
Circumcision protects from STD (infant probably isn't gonna have sex, so the idea that circumcision will protect him from STD is insane. Also, I challenge anyone who thinks circumcision protects from STD to get circumcised and then have unprotected sex with woman with STD, preferably aids. Because they seem confident.)
Circumcision prevents masturbation in boys (an early Christian reason for circumcision in 20th century. So yes, apparently, Christians were actively imagining young boys touching themselves.)
Smoking at any age is totally counter-productive
What is productive depends on what is wanted.
Yes sides are assigned randomly
If I manage to get enough votes cast on ultrarated debates, I will sign up. Or maybe on next tournament round. Either way, if i am not there in time, start without me.
Everyone dies. Of course, people who smoke die sooner, but its still a voluntary slow suicide. I am sure if smokers wanted to merely live longer, they wouldnt be smokers.
there are many theories on time. the one theory I dont buy is that time is relative and that universe doesnt have one present moment.
I can accept theory that time doesnt exist, and all events of past, present and future are already existing in B timeline. Sort of like how image frames on video are all already existing when video is being played.
Why would it even matter if I don't want to participate in your world
You dont have to participate in any world. But if you are justifying infant circumcision videos, then yeah you are participating in that world.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
What a weird way to justify torture of infant's penis and the recording of such.
Why would it even matter if it was sexual or not? I mean, it obviously is, but even if we pretend it's not, does it make it any better?
And yet Side is way more freaked out by the sound of the P word than they are by perverse ritual acts of violent infant abuse.
I mean, even without P word being used, one must wonder why humanity greets infants into this world by bondage and sexually torturing them and recording it, and sees nothing wrong with that.
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality
Well, it's not just sexuality. If it was just that, if it was just doctor touching boy's penis on video, one could say it's just sexuality.
And in that case, issues would be raised on if baby can consent to that somehow.
However, circumcision is torture. Even if I were to be convinced that baby can consent to have it's penis touched, I cannot be convinced that baby consents to being tortured. Mainly because children by default will almost always reject circumcision when given a choice. And baby screaming in pain and resisting with no idea what is happening, probably doesn't want that pain and torture at all.
So we can't really say that baby wants to be tortured sexually.
Mainly because non-verbal communication which baby possesses, usually comes in form of "smiling = good, crying = bad, seeking = good".
The baby doesn't seek circumcision.
Are positions on topics chosen randomly? Like, am I forced to be pro or con? I know topics are chosen randomly, and a lot of topics I have no much interest in, but if I have to also defend a side I disagree with on topic I didn't choose, then that's a big disadvantage for me because my motivation would drop severely.
I find it creepy that you think of infant circumcision sexually
A lot of abusive pedophiles probably become circumcisers because it let's them abuse infants legally. And the ones who are into torture can also legally watch torture child porn in form of circumcision videos.
So the real question is, why are you defending the rights of abusive pedophiles?
That's just creepy.
So function it did and the base reality of everything that occurred was the truth of what occurred
Sure, saying that "liar lies" is truth, it is reality of what occurs. But it doesnt mean lies which liar says = truth.
How society functions is reality
No, if society functions based on a lie, that lie isnt reality. If society is full of liars, that may be how society functions, but it doesnt convert lies to truth.
And if such videos exist
Oh, there is bunch of them on google. Apparently, its enough to just google "infant circumcision video" to get countless results.
But the problem with these videos is that they are not merely child porn. they are also sexual torture gore videos, where babies scream in pain while their dick is displayed, touched and cut painfully, with blood involved.
So if posting sexual torture gore child nudity online is okay when doctor does it, that raises a lot of questions about what people find to be okay.
Sidewalker needs to forget about his pedophobia for a second and just ask:
Is it okay to post baby's genitals online?
If no, well then, circumcision videos arent okay.
But the paper version rarely matches with day to day social function
How society functions is irrelevant to what objective truth is.
However, you will find that respecting autonomy of others is usually better for you than not respecting it, so cant really say belief in body autonomy isnt beneficial to person who believes in it.
No, they dont. If that were true, punishment of any kind would be against the law and/or immoral.
False conclusion.
Argument from repetition? You're not addressing the counter-argument...
Your "counter argument" is that it was on subjective foundation, which it isnt.
That is really not very clear.
If you cant follow simple line of logic, then you probably dont need to bother with anything here.
Morality itself is subjective.
False.
Nobody gives a shit what a pedophiles demand, that is what's consistent.
At least you are consistent in your inconsistency.
Secondly, autonomy isn't an absolute for every person for every situation. For instance, a child doesn't that hasnt achieved the age of reason/consent doesnt have full autonomy. Parents have the ability to override a child preferences to protect them. Barring that means a lot of youth will die ir suffer unnecessarily
Children have same autonomy as adults.
This is because removing autonomy for subjective reasons is a self-defeating principle.
Person A wants to remove autonomy from others for subjective reasons = autonomy can be removed for subjective reasons = People can remove autonomy from person A for subjective reasons = person A loses ability to remove autonomy from others for subjective reasons
Violating autonomy is good = violating autonomy of those who violate autonomy is good = violating autonomy by removing ability to violate autonomy is good = ability to violate autonomy disappears, removal of ability to violate autonomy becomes justified
You are describing a recursive moral structure where a principle turns back onto itself.
The chain can be expressed more clearly like this:
1. Premise: “Violating autonomy is good.”
2. Then violating the autonomy of autonomy-violators is also good.
3. Preventing them from violating autonomy may require restricting or removing their capacity to do so.
4. Therefore the principle justifies suppressing agents who practice it.
So the principle contains a tendency toward self-negation: a universal permission to violate autonomy authorizes others to stop you from violating autonomy.
This resembles a kind of self-undermining universalization problem:
If everyone may violate autonomy,
then everyone may also suppress autonomy-violators,
which can lead to systems that eliminate the very freedom to violate autonomy.
The result is not a strict formal contradiction like “A and not-A” simultaneously, but rather a self-consuming norm: the principle authorizes conditions that can abolish its own exercise.
Your reasoning is structurally close to ideas in:
Thomas Hobbes — unrestricted liberty leading to conflict and the creation of constraints,
Immanuel Kant — universalization and contradiction in willing,
and modern “paradox of tolerance” discussions associated with Karl Popper.
The underlying pattern is:
> A universally permitted destructive principle permits its own suppression.
That does not automatically prove autonomy is absolutely inviolable in every imaginable case, but it does show that a principle of arbitrary autonomy-violation struggles to remain stable when universalized.
Bodily autonomy sits on a subjective foundation
No. It is objectively true that any arbitrary justification for violating autonomy produces defeat against itself.
So autonomy is proved by objective truth that any violation of it is self-contradictive in justification.
It doesn't matter how much you whine about it being unfair, pedophilia is illegal
Sure, I merely demand some consistency from my enemies. If they want to ban pedophilia, that's fine, but then they should also ban circumcision videos, or someone will say they are being terribly inconsistent.
